Case 1401986/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Clarke Brown, Friend For the v The Tewkesbury Marina Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401986/2020
- Decision date
- 20 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Clarke Brown, Friend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mark Brown had worked for the respondent since January 2012, later as Senior Harbourmaster. He was summarily dismissed on 10 February 2020 after a meeting with the managing director, Mr Mark Cottrell, where he was told he was dismissed immediately for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that he had not been given prior warning that the meeting was disciplinary, had not been told the allegations, had not been shown evidence, and had not been informed of his right to be accompanied. He appealed and raised a grievance, and a Zoom meeting on 27 April 2020 chaired by Eagle HR considered the appeal and grievance, but no evidence was ever provided to substantiate the allegations and the process did not result in a substantive response.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that the respondent produced no evidence to prove that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It therefore held that he had been entitled to eight weeks' notice and had been wrongfully dismissed. Using his net pay and crediting three weeks of alternative employment at Tesco, the tribunal awarded damages for breach of contract in the net sum of £2,148.68.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the conduct dismissal authorities it cited, including the Burchell line of cases, Polkey, and Taylor v OCS Group. It found that the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation, had not shown a genuine belief on reasonable grounds that gross misconduct had occurred, and had acted outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,769.24 and a compensatory award of £11,242.48, including loss of statutory rights, net loss to the date of hearing, and future loss. It then applied a 25% uplift for repeated breaches of the ACAS Code, producing final compensation for unfair dismissal of £21,264.65. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were held not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal without the eight weeks' contractual notice; damages were assessed net of three weeks' alternative earnings from Tesco. | Upheld | — | £2,149 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was found unfair because the respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation and disciplinary process; the final compensation included a 25% ACAS uplift under s.207A after the basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | £21,265 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,265
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,769
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,242
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 (Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures) 2015
- Post Office v Foley
- HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.